- Oct 29, 2017
- 64,476
- 10,678
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
If I was faced with a gang of ANTIFA thugs; I'd pick her for my team, over the entire Uvalde Police force combined.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If I was faced with a gang of ANTIFA thugs; I'd pick her for my team, over the entire Uvalde Police force combined.Now let’s be honest here. This girl has ear protection, eye protection, and her barrel is pointing in a safe direction. You could honestly say you don’t think she has the right to enjoy the sport and safety a firearm can provide, but it’s reckless to accuse this girl of throwing caution to the wind, given the picture of her.
I have collected brass and bullets for my favorite calibers for years and reload most of my ammo. My grandkids and I spend a lot of time on my shooting range with 22s and 17 HMR and SM, both in AR package.Ammo prices are so right right now that I don't see myself throwing that much lead in the air; but I used to regularly spend all day plinking water jugs with 9 pellet .00 and 1 oz, slugs. Big fun! I would use my tactical shotgun with dual pistol grips; so my shoulder didn't come into play. One thing that I can say is that when I would shoot the magnum rounds; that it was hard on my wrists. I couldn't do that all day.
So do I, but that doesn't mean the majority feel this way.I know a lot of veterans who love their high capacity magazines and don’t want them taken away.
I only quoted the findings of a study that was found in that article. The rest of the article's content is irrelevant. There are three veterans posting in this thread that I'm aware of, and while I can't speak for the other two, I am fairly confident that they, like myself, would have no problem with a ban on AR-15s and high-capacity magazines based on their past postings on this forum.I don’t believe your article for a second because it doesn’t even remotely correlate to what I’ve actually witnessed with my own experiences with veterans on the subject.
Data on firearm homicides is incomplete. Not all law enforcement agencies report data to the FBI, including some from major cities, and the type of firearm used is often not included. While handguns are undoubtedly the most often used, the number of rifles, including "assault style" weapons used is actually much higher than what you find in the FBI's statistics.Right and according to the 7,500 homicides committed each year with pistols you’re looking somewhere in the neighborhood of 287 people killed in the last two weeks not counting how many incidents resulted in nonfatal injuries or crimes that didn’t result in death or injury.
I'm so glad that I live in a Republic, where the masses brainwashed by propaganda can't overthrow the government.So do I, but that doesn't mean the majority feel this way.
Couldn't we expect the same for the rest of their statistics?Data on firearm homicides is incomplete. Not all law enforcement agencies report data to the FBI, including some from major cities, and the type of firearm used is often not included. While handguns are undoubtedly the most often used, the number of rifles, including "assault style" weapons used is actually much higher than what you find in the FBI's statistics.
A ban on the AR-15 rifle in itself would not bother me...if it stopped there.I only quoted the findings of a study that was found in that article. The rest of the article's content is irrelevant. There are three veterans posting in this thread that I'm aware of, and while I can't speak for the other two, I am fairly confident that they, like myself, would have no problem with a ban on AR-15s and high-capacity magazines based on their past postings on this forum.
Why would you mind even go there? That speaks of a very strong prejudice on your part.
The findings indicate that veterans (and particularly combat veterans) are more supportive than nonveterans of expanding civilians' gun carrying rights. On the other hand, veterans with and without combat experience are more likely to favor banning AR15 and military-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips. Veterans are also more likely to favor a 14-day waiting period for all gun purchases, but they do not have unique positions on mental health screening for gun purchases.BTW, I never did see your source that supports your bare assertion.
that was my point you are far more likely to be killed by a handgun than you are by an AR or any assault weapon. I was not trying to use real numbers only trying to show that in terms of just body count handguns take FAR more lives, and yet fairly few people are for banning them.Actually the difference between homicides with pistols and “assault rifles” is more than 15 times. I can’t find anything saying how many homicides are committed each year with “assault rifles”. The only thing I can find is how many are committed with handguns which is around 7,500 per year and how many are committed with rifles which is around 500 per year and that’s with ALL rifles not just “assault rifles”. So I would have to conclude that some of those 500 are being committed with rifles other than “assault rifles” therefore I would have to conclude that handguns account for more than 15 times more homicides than so called “assault rifles”.
that is my other issue.A ban on the AR-15 rifle in itself would not bother me...if it stopped there.
But I know the intention is not to stop there.
Never say never. The Japanese invaded and held a few Aleutian Islands for about a year in WWII. That said, the Chinese have long held the principle of vassal states, longer than there's been a US, which is different than occupation. A state that has vassal status is as desirable, perhaps more so, than possessing territory. Given how US companies kowtow to China in hopes of preserving market access, we may already be well on that path.
There's also, sadly, a question: If the Chinese did invade and occupy the US, would it really make much of a difference?
It is not about just mass shootings. Do you want to save MORE lives or appear to be saaaving more lives? Also, very few gun deaths are the resault of true blue mass shootings.So do I, but that doesn't mean the majority feel this way.
I only quoted the findings of a study that was found in that article. The rest of the article's content is irrelevant. There are three veterans posting in this thread that I'm aware of, and while I can't speak for the other two, I am fairly confident that they, like myself, would have no problem with a ban on AR-15s and high-capacity magazines based on their past postings on this forum.
Data on firearm homicides is incomplete. Not all law enforcement agencies report data to the FBI, including some from major cities, and the type of firearm used is often not included. While handguns are undoubtedly the most often used, the number of rifles, including "assault style" weapons used is actually much higher than what you find in the FBI's statistics.
View attachment 346728
The use of "assault style" weapons in mass shootings is increasing compared to years past.
View attachment 346729
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.." —Bill Clinton USA Today--3-11-93, page 2aBut I know the intention is not to stop there.
The use of "assault style" weapons in mass shootings is increasing compared to years past.
View attachment 346729
If you were a Jew, living in Israel last Oct 7, 2023, you'd have a better understanding then you do now.
Or, if you wake up at 3am, in your Country.... and 5 hooded robbers are in your house, and they are going to do more to your family then rob them... = at that point, you'll understand why protecting your family with a gun is the "smart play", and its Biblical, as the NT says that if you dont provide for your Family = you are "worse then an Infidel".
So, to PROTECT YOUR FAMILY< ... is one of the things you PROVIDE for them.
Only the uneducated can't understand this common sense.
And if you dont, . ... READER. then wishing you'd "had a gun" later, is not going to help you sleep better at night.
Figure it out.
Yes if they have the INTENT to use them on other human beings just because or to commit other crimes all I have to say is we live in a fallen world and people are crazy. On the other hand, if they only have the intent to use them on fellew humans as a matter of defense then that isaa not crazy at all. In fact, I have NO respect for people not willing to protect others and yes this includes violently if need be.Yes, it probably does. The gun owner who keeps guns with the intent to use them on other human beings in everyday life is utterly baffling to me. Further, sometimes in these threads I sense a contempt for the value of human beings who aren't in one's family, as though they're less than human. That's why my mind went there.
But I will admit to the possibility of strong prejudice on this.
Moving the goalposts? OK so by what ratios are veterans in favor of banning AR15s?The findings indicate that veterans (and particularly combat veterans) are more supportive than nonveterans of expanding civilians' gun carrying rights. On the other hand, veterans with and without combat experience are more likely to favor banning AR15 and military-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips. Veterans are also more likely to favor a 14-day waiting period for all gun purchases, but they do not have unique positions on mental health screening for gun purchases.
I didn't say assault weapon. I said "Assault style" weapon. Below is how I described the AR-15 which I consider to be an "assault style" weapon.What the heck is an "Assault Weapon"?
First and foremost, the AR-15 was designed to kill humans in the most efficient way possible. All of the following features of an AR-15 are there for that purpose: The AR-15 forward grip is designed so the shooter can release the magazine with their trigger finger without ever removing their hand from the grip. This allows someone with a little practice to exchange an empty magazine with a full one in around a second. Try doing that with a standard fixed-stock semi-automatic rifle. A forward grip and a detachable high-capacity magazine allow a shooter to literally drill bullets accurately into a group of people and reload without giving anyone the opportunity to disarm them. The high muzzle velocity of an AR-15 combined with a light bullet causes catastrophic damage when it enters a human body, and the AR-15's light weight and short length make it an excellent weapon for maneuvering in closed quarters.
You heard wrong. As of today below is the oath that is taken by all individuals entering the US military.I heard that the military is no longer required to take an oath to defend the Constitution.
No moving of goalposts, that is from the same study that was in the article I linked to earlier. The study also found that veterans with combat experience are 78% more likely than non-vets to favor banning AR-15s and high-capacity magazines.Moving the goalposts? OK so by what ratios are veterans in favor of banning AR15s?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?